In 1992, Dillon published his critical review of the empirical literature on reading from paper vs. screen. However, the debate concerning the equivalence of computer- and paper-based tasks continues, especially with the growing interest in online assessment. The current paper reviews the literature over the last 15 years and contrasts the results of these more recent studies with Dillon's findings. It is concluded that total equivalence is not possible to achieve, although developments in computer technology, more sophisticated comparative measures and more positive user attitudes have resulted in a continuing move towards achieving this goal. Many paper-based tasks used for assessment or evaluation have been transferred directly onto computers with little regard for any implications. This paper considers equivalence issues between the media by reviewing performance measures. While equivalence seems impossible, the importance of any differences appears specific to the task and required outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundIn a special issue of the British Journal of Educational Technology, Clariana and Wallace (2002) sought to confirm the key factors which influence paper-based and computerbased assessment of the academic performance of university undergraduates. They classified these influences as test mode effects. On an identical multiple-choice test, they found that the group undertaking the assessment on computer outperformed the paper-based test group. The higher-attaining students were shown to benefit most from the computer-based assessment. This finding has important implications for the mode of assessment. It is suggested that another factor that needs to be taken into account when considering the mode of presentation is the amount of cognitive workload associated with paper-and computer-based tasks.

Students today comprise a very diverse group, and this will be reflected in their attitudes towards learning. This study set out to examine four different cohorts of UK students during the same time period. Contrary to expectations, it was found that attitudes towards books and computers, as measured by separate but matched scales, were equal, even though experience of the two media varied considerably. A key predictor for computer attitude was found to be confidence for learning from computers rather than general computer confidence. Further, attitudes and confidence towards books and computers as learning tools varied significantly across the four cohorts.